As part of our efforts to explore and highlight different views and concerns with regard to negotiations and talks with the anti-government armed forces, this time we interviewed Ahmad Behzad, a member of the House of Representatives from Herat province. Behzad is a vocal critic of the Afghan government and believes the Taliban do not constitute a defined political force with whom one can sit behind a negotiating table.

How do you see talks with the Taliban or the anti-government forces?

Behzad: I don’t believe that Taliban is a political group considering their past and current activities and I am not convinced that talks with this group can achieve any objective. Basically, terrorism is not a phenomenon that could be negotiated with. Furthering the plan of negotiation with the Taliban will take us to another direction in other words officially accepting the phenomenon of terrorism. Therefore, I cannot give you a proper definition of negotiation with the Taliban.

To what extent do you think the government has succeeded in talks with the Taliban?

Behzad: I believe the government of Hamid Karzai has not been able to achieve the objectives it planned in the talks with the Taliban. One of the objectives of the government was to reduce the insecurity, instability and reduce violence resulting from Taliban activities. As we observe there has been no achievements in this regard.

Those forces inside Afghanistan that have some commonalities with the Taliban or wish to return the Taliban to power were hopeless in the early days of international interventions Afghanistan. As a result, they distanced themselves from Taliban styles of behaviors in the country. Now, as the issue of negotiation with the Taliban is proposed and they are officially recognized; these forces are gaining momentum and trying to get closer with the Taliban.

Does the failure of government to achieve results means there is something regards with the mechanisms of negotiations with the insurgents?

Behzad: Basically the government’s claims regarding talks with the Taliban are in contradictions with other claims it has made in the past and present.

For example, the government of Hamid Karzai claimed that Taliban is the product of foreign intelligence organizations sent to Afghanistan to serve the objectives of foreigners. When we look at this analysis, Taliban are not the cause but the effect. However, now in the talks they are introduced as the cause.

Another [government] proposition in contradiction with the talks with the Taliban is the claim of internal dissatisfactions. On several occasions, the government has claimed that one of the main reasons behind the Taliban recruitment is corruption and inefficiency of local official and governments in certain parts of the country and this is claimed to have widened the gulf between the people and the state and offered potential recruits for the Taliban. Now, if we accept this claim as a fact then I think, whatever privileges we give to the Taliban, provide them with money and make deals with them, have no effect when there is a clear distance between people and the government. This means when an environment of dissatisfaction prevails and people distance themselves from the government we will not be able to achieve our goals. In other words, we will leave a Taliban production factory in place and create energies for it and only fight or deal with its products.

The conclusion I draw is that the policy of negotiation with the Taliban is contradiction with government claims of the sources of the Taliban in both domestic and foreign arenas.

Does this mean the government should, at first, sit down and negotiate with those countries that are supposedly sponsoring the Taliban project?

Behzad: Yes, but considering some other facts beside it. There have been many factors behind the formation, re-organization, and re-strengthening of the Taliban. First, foreign intervention in formation and reorganization of the Taliban to regain power. Second, those particular areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be identified and dealt with that provide the ground for organized crimes and violent movements. Therefore, in our foreign policy we must persuade the Taliban supporters to give up their support for the terrorist groups and the Taliban. In security areas we must strengthen our borders. In the administrative area we must focus on policies to avoid a centralized system and adopt a decentralized system in which the different parts of Afghan society can select their own social and cultural system. In this way we can remove the guardians of the Taliban, deprive them from their social bases and restrict their military maneuvers in the country.

Have the plan of negotiation and talks with the Taliban not strengthened the spirit and activities of this group and the anti-government forces?

Behzad: The consequences of talks and negotiations with the terrorist groups including the Taliban, has been devastating and damaging. First, it has encouraged the Taliban. With the proposition of this motto Taliban revived and planned to exert more pressure on the government of Afghanistan and the foreign forces to gain better and bigger privileges. That part of the society who no more had any hope for the Taliban gained hopes that this group will again emerge in the political scene. Third, the government of Afghanistan is trying to give Taliban privileges by releasing the Taliban captives who were caught in fights against the political system of Afghanistan. It has given Taliban more supremacy as they have again joined their ranks.

Another element is the economic issue and the extravagant expenditure of money. A part of this money goes into the pockets of government officials and mafia bonds that work on the policies of negotiation with the Taliban. I believe the effect of these talks of negotiation is most devastating on the determination and motivation of the ranks of Afghan armed forces. In a face to face fighting one must give high level of incentive and motivation to their forces so that they stand and fight their opponents. However, when the government and the leadership of the country call the Taliban officially in respected titles and even try to name it a national resistance force and not a terrorist group then it is natural that there will be flaws in the ranks of armed forces. After all, a soldier is confused whether he fights a terrorist group or a national resistance force. These are results of those destructive policies that have expanded insecurity in the country and the widespread corruption inside Afghan government.

How do you see the High Council for Peace?

Behzad: The High Council for Peace has nothing to do. Unfortunately, the members of the Council are those people who are accustomed to destructive political dealings. They exist in Afghanistan because of these destructive political deals. A number of these members are those who were critics of negotiation with the Taliban including those who weeks before gave handsome speeches denouncing the policies of negotiation with the Taliban. But, for obtaining money from those dirty foreign channels they have joined this council. They have no program for negotiation but to play some tricks and games to receive more money. A part of them wants political privileges and another part is economic mafia. I believe that the continuity of their work will bring more crises in Afghanistan.